Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the output fields and accepted ID formats, which is useful. But it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, error cases, permission requirements, or how tenant affects the result beyond being a parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is one dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and packs in useful specifics, though the long enumeration of ID types is slightly hard to parse. No redundant phrases.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, the description leaves tenant semantics ambiguous (what does tenant change?) and decision_id unexplained. For a tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, this gap is significant and could lead to misparameterization.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to presentation_id by listing the accepted ID types, and mentions tenant exists, but gives no detail on tenant's role. decision_id is completely absent from the description, leaving a required-adjacent parameter entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the action (get), the resource (authorised presentation by id), and enumerates the exact return fields (brand, strength, form, route, device, pack, holder, status, offers). The list of accepted ID types makes the scope explicit and distinguishes it from siblings like get_price or get_substance_record.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage is clear: when you have one of the listed presentation identifiers and need the core presentation details, this is the tool. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives such as get_availability or compare_presentations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.